\(R= \mathbb Z[x]\) is a ring. \(R\) is not a PID as can be shown considering the ideal \(I\) generated by the set \(\{2,x\}\). \(I\) cannot be generated by a single element \(p\). If it was, \(p\) would divide \(2\), i.e. \(p=1\) or \(p=2\). We can’t have \(p=1\) as it means \(R = I\) but \(3 \notin I\). We can’t have either \(p=2\) as it implies the contradiction \(x \notin I\). The ideal \(J = (x)\) is a prime ideal as \(R/J \cong \mathbb Z\) is an integral domain. Since \(\mathbb Z\) is not a field, \(J\) is not a maximal ideal.

A group with four elements is isomorphic to either the cyclic group \(\mathbb Z_4\) or to the Klein four-group \(\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2\). Those groups are commutative. Endowed with the usual additive and multiplicative operations, \(\mathbb Z_4\) and \(\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2\) are commutative rings.

Are all four elements rings also isomorphic to either \(\mathbb Z_4\) or \(\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2\)? The answer is negative. Let’s provide two additional examples of commutative rings with four elements not isomorphic to \(\mathbb Z_4\) or \(\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2\).

The first one is the field \(\mathbb F_4\). \(\mathbb F_4\) is a commutative ring with four elements. It is not isomorphic to \(\mathbb Z_4\) or \(\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2\) as both of those rings have zero divisor. Indeed we have \(2 \cdot 2 = 0\) in \(\mathbb Z_4\) and \((1,0) \cdot (0,1)=(0,0)\) in \(\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2\).

A second one is the ring \(R\) of the matrices \(\begin{pmatrix}
x & 0\\
y & x\end{pmatrix}\) where \(x,y \in \mathbb Z_2\). One can easily verify that \(R\) is a commutative subring of the ring \(M_2(\mathbb Z_2)\). It is not isomorphic to \(\mathbb Z_4\) as its characteristic is \(2\). This is not isomorphic to \(\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2\) either as \(\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0\\
1 & 0\end{pmatrix}\) is a non-zero matrix solution of the equation \(X^2=0\). \((0,0)\) is the only solution of that equation in \(\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2\).

One can prove that the four rings mentioned above are the only commutative rings with four elements up to isomorphism.

In a ring \(R\) a unit is any element \(u\) that has a multiplicative inverse \(v\), i.e. an element \(v\) such that \[
uv=vu=1,\] where \(1\) is the multiplicative identity.

The only units of the commutative ring \(\mathbb Z\) are \(-1\) and \(1\). For a field \(\mathbb F\) the units of the ring \(\mathrm M_n(\mathbb F)\) of the square matrices of dimension \(n \times n\) is the general linear group \(\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb F)\) of the invertible matrices. The group \(\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb F)\) is infinite if \(\mathbb F\) is infinite, but the ring \(\mathrm M_n(\mathbb F)\) is not commutative for \(n \ge 2\).

If \(\phi : A \to B\) is a ring homomorphism then the image of a subring \(S \subset A\) is a subring \(\phi(A) \subset B\). Is the image of an ideal under a ring homomorphism also an ideal? The answer is negative. Let’s provide a simple counterexample.

Let’s take \(A=\mathbb Z\) the ring of the integers and for \(B\) the ring of the polynomials with integer coefficients \(\mathbb Z[x]\). The inclusion \(\phi : \mathbb Z \to \mathbb Z[x]\) is a ring homorphism. The subset \(2 \mathbb Z \subset \mathbb Z\) of even integers is an ideal. However \(2 \mathbb Z\) is not an ideal of \(\mathbb Z[x]\) as for example \(2x \notin 2\mathbb Z\).

Let’s recall that a set \(R\) equipped with two operations \((R,+,\cdot)\) is a ring if and only if \((R,+)\) is an abelian group, multiplication \(\cdot\) is associative and has a multiplicative identity \(1\) and multiplication is left and right distributive with respect to addition.

\((\mathbb Z, +, \cdot)\) is a well known infinite ring which is commutative. The rational, real and complex numbers are other infinite commutative rings. Those are in fact fields as every non-zero element have a multiplicative inverse.

For a field \(F\) (finite or infinite), the polynomial ring \(F[X]\) is another example of infinite commutative ring.

Let’s recall that a simple ring is a non-zero ring that has no two-sided ideal besides the zero ideal and itself. A division ring is a simple ring. Is the converse true? The answer is negative and we provide here a counterexample of a simple ring which is not a division ring.

We prove that for \(n \ge 1\) the matrix ring \(M_n(F)\) of \(n \times n\) matrices over a field \(F\) is simple. \(M_n(F)\) is obviously not a division ring as the matrix with \(1\) at position \((1,1)\) and \(0\) elsewhere is not invertible.

We take a field \(F\), for example \(\mathbb Q\), \(\mathbb R\), \(\mathbb F_p\) (where \(p\) is a prime) or whatever more exotic.

The polynomial ring \(F[X]\) is a UFD. This follows from the fact that \(F[X]\) is a Euclidean domain. It is also known that for a UFD \(R\), \(R[X]\) is also a UFD. Therefore the polynomial ring \(F[X_1,X_2]\) in two variables is a UFD as \(F[X_1,X_2] = F[X_1][X_2]\). However the ideal \(I=(X_1,X_2)\) is not principal. Let’s prove it by contradiction.

Suppose that \((X_1,X_2) = (P)\) with \(P \in F[X_1,X_2]\). Then there exist two polynomials \(Q_1,Q_2 \in F[X_1,X_2]\) such that \(X_1=PQ_1\) and \(X_2=PQ_2\). As a polynomial in variable \(X_2\), the polynomial \(X_1\) is having degree \(0\). Therefore, the degree of \(P\) as a polynomial in variable \(X_2\) is also equal to \(0\). By symmetry, we get that the degree of \(P\) as a polynomial in variable \(X_1\) is equal to \(0\) too. Which implies that \(P\) is an element of the field \(F\) and consequently that \((X_1,X_2) = F[X_1,X_2]\).

But the equality \((X_1,X_2) = F[X_1,X_2]\) is absurd. Indeed, the degree of a polynomial \(X_1 T_1 + X_2 T_2\) cannot be equal to \(0\) for any \(T_1,T_2 \in F[X_1,X_2]\). And therefore \(1 \notin F[X_1,X_2]\).